 |
|
Injustice to Urdu in India
Not in our interest |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Profile On Record
|
Injustice to Urdu in India Great
injustice has been done in our country to Urdu. This great language, which has produced perhaps the best poetry in modern India -Mir,
Galib, Firaq, Faiz, etc. - and is a shining gem in the treasury of Indian culture, is today neglected and almost looked at with suspicion. I cannot imagine a greater foolishness. This injustice to Urdu was due to two false notions, which were propagated by certain vested interests: (1) that Urdu is a foreign language and (2) that Urdu is a language of Muslims alone. The first idea is palpably false. Arabic and Persian are no doubt foreign languages but Urdu is a language which is totally indigenous. It was born here in India as the language of the Lashkar (camp) and of the market. In its simplified form (as Khariboli or Hindustani) it is the language of the common man in large parts of urban India. Its prominent figures all lived in India, and they have made an outstanding contribution to our culture, dealing with the problems of the people, sympathising in their sorrows, and touching the human heart. Only ignorant people can call Urdu a foreign language. The second notion, that Urdu is a language of Muslims alone, is also false. In fact up to the last generation in our country Urdu was the language of all educated people, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian, in large part of urban India. In my opinion no country can progress if it overlooks its own cultural heritage. And I may clarify here that I do not regard Kashmiri Pandits alone as my ancestors, I regard Kalidasa also as my ancestor, I regard Amir Khusro also as my ancestor, I regard Ashoka and
Akbar, Sur and Tulsi as my ancestors, just as I regard Mir and Ghalib as my ancestors. Real ancestry is cultural ancestry and not mere blood ancestry. Urdu has a national following in our country as it is spoken in 13 States of the country. Urdu is the language which was created by the superimposition of some features and vocabulary of the Persian language on a Hindustani
(Khariboli) foundation. Thus Urdu is a language created by the combination of two languages, Persian and Hindustani. It is for this reason that at one time it was called ‘Rekhta’ which means hybrid. Since Urdu was created by the combination of Persian and Hindustani, the question arises whether Urdu is a special kind of Persian or a special kind of Hindustani? The answer is that it is a special kind of Hindustani, not a special kind of Persian. I am emphasising this because had Urdu been a special kind of Persian it would have been a foreign language. The fact that it is a special kind of Khariboli (or Hindustani) shows that it is a desi or indigenous
language. Khariboli is simple or spoken Hindi, as contrasted to literary Hindi which is used by many writers and public speakers. Khariboli is an urban language. It is the first language of the common man in the cities of what is known as the Hindi-speaking belt (Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Himachal
Pradesh, etc) and is that second language in the cities of many parts of the non-Hindi speaking belt, not only in India but also in Pakistan. For centuries Persian was the court language of India. This was because Persian had been highly developed in Persia by writers like
Firdausi, Hafiz, Sadi, Roomi, Umar Khayyam, etc. as a language of culture, grace and sophistication, and it spread to large parts of the oriental world. The Mughals were Turks, not Persians, but though their mother tongue was Turkish, they accepted Persian as the court language as it was more developed than Turkish. Thus, though Babar wrote his autobiography,
Tuzuk-e-Babri, in Turkish, his grandson Akbar got it translated into Persian and called it
Babarnama. His own biography, Akbarnama, written by Abul Fazl is in Persian, and so is the autobiography of his son Jehangir (called
Jahangirnama) and the biography of Shahjehan (called Shahjehanarna). Persian was the court language of India for several centuries, and hence it exerted its influence on the common language of the cities, which as already mentioned above, was
Khariboli. How, then was Urdu created? This is a fascinating question, and I will try to answer it. These later Mughals were Emperors only in name, they were in fact
pauperised, they had lost their empire to the Britishers, the Marathas, and their Governors, who had really became independent rulers (like the Nawabs of Awadh or Nizam of
Hyderabad). In their reign the court language gradually ceased to be Persian and instead became Urdu. Why did the court language which was Persian in the reign of the great Mughals become Urdu in the reign of the later
Mughals? This was because the later Mughals were not real Emperors but had become nearer to commoners or paupers with all the difficulties of the common man. Hence they had to take recourse to a language nearer the common man. Why then did their court language not become
Khariboli, which was the language of the common man in the cities? That was because these later
Mughals, and their lieutenants, the Nawabs and Wazirs, while having become pauperised retained their dignity, culture and self respect. They still prided themselves in being Shahzade-Timuria i.e. descendants of
Timur, the great conqueror (who was Babar’s grandfather’s great-grandfather) and descendants of the great
Mughals. The well-known story of Urdu’s greatest poet Ghalib is that despite being in great financial distress he refused a job simply because when he went to offer his services no one was there to receive him. The content of Urdu i.e. the feelings and ideas expressed therein are that of the common man, but its form of expression is aristocratic. In other words, Urdu expresses the troubles, sorrows, anxieties and hopes and aspirations of the common man, but its style
(andaz-e-bayan) is not that of a common man but that of an aristocrat. For instance, Ghalib had a horror of the commonplace in the mode of expression in poetry. Regarding himself an aristocrat, he had an intense desire to be different from the common masses, and his poetry is marked by its originality and unconventionality.
Ghalib was of the firm view that the language of poetry should not be the same as the spoken language. Hence he often expresses his thoughts not directly but indirectly, by hints and suggestions. The same is true of many other Urdu poets. They often express their thoughts and feelings not in simple, direct language but by insinuations, allusions, indications, and in a roundabout way, the aim being to appear sophisticated and elitist, instead of being commonplace. However, this sometimes makes the work difficult to understand (the great Urdu critic and biographer Hali regarded one-third of Ghalib’s verses too recondite to be regarded as being in Urdu), and sometimes several meanings can be attributed to them. As long as there were strong Mughal Emperors in India, Persian was the court language and Urdu was never given respectability, and could never become the court 1anguage in North India, but instead found its haven or sanctuary in South India and Gujarat (where it was the language of the elite). In a sense Urdu originated in South India and became popular there during the reign of the great
Mughals, receiving patronage in the Southern kingdoms of Golkunda,
Bijapur, Ahmednagar, etc. where it became the court language. Thus it is interesting to note that Urdu became the court language in South India and Gujarat during the reign of the Great Mughals but it could never displace Persian in the North as long as there were strong
Mughals. It was only when the era of the later Mughals began (after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707) that Persian was gradually displaced by Urdu as the court language though this was done very grudgingly. An example of this is Ghalib who preferred his Persian poetry and looked down upon his Urdu poetry (though his greatness is entirely due to the latter). Thus, in a letter to his friend Munshi Shiv Narain Aram Ghalib writes “My friend, how can I write in Urdu? Is my standing so low that this should be expected of me?” Thus, writing in Urdu was regarded infra dig, and all respectable writers at that time wrote in Persian. Right up to 1947 Urdu was the language of the courts, and of the educated people in large parts of India. At the same time, due to its dual nature, it was also (as
Khariboli) the common man’s language in urban areas. Being the common man’s language in large parts of urban India Urdu borrowed from every language, and never objected to words of other languages. Since Urdu was the common man’s language it was loved by the common man, and is loved even today. Even today Hindi film songs are in Urdu, for the voice of the heart will be in one’s own language, however, much some people may try to suppress it. In railway bookstalls the books which get sold are works of
Ghalib, Mir, Faiz, Josh, Firaq, Hali, Dag, Majaz, Zauq, etc. (nowadays in Devnagri script) and not the works of Hindi poets. Hindi writers who have an Urdu background e.g.
Premchand, Kishan Chand, Rajender Singh Bedi, Prof. Gopi Chand and Malik Ram are most accepted even in the Hindi world. Urdu is loved by the people of India because it has grown among the people. Urdu literature is a literature of protest, protest against the afflictions of the common man and against injustice. Urdu poetry has protested against ritualism, formalism, and oppressive or antiquated social customs (in this sense it can be said to be a successor to Kabir’s poetry, though of course it is much more sophisticated. Being the language of the common man in modern India Urdu is almost entirely secular, an exception being the later part of Iqbal’s poetry when he went over from nationalism to Pan Islamism. Urdu literature has Sufi influence. The Sufis were the liberals among the Muslims, and not the bigoted. They spread the message of universal love among all humans, whatever their religion, caste, etc. Some of the Urdu writers like Mir and Nazir have written beautiful poems on
Holi, Diwali, Raakhi and other Hindu festivals and customs, which shows that Urdu was not the language of any particular religion. A large number of Hindus have made their names in the front ranks of Urdu literature e.g.
Firaq, Chakbast, Ratan Lal Sarshar, etc. In Vali’s poetry the words
Ganga, Jamuna, Krishna, Ram, Saraswati, Sita, Lakshmi, etc. appear frequently. The greatest damage to Urdu was done by the Partition of India in 1947. Since then Urdu was branded in India as a foreign language, as a language of Muslims alone, so much so that even Muslims stopped studying Urdu to show their ‘patriotism’ and solidarity with their Hindu brethren. This policy of hatefully removing Persian words which were in common use in Khariboli and replacing them by Sanskrit words which are not in common use resulted in creating an unnecessarily Sanskritised Hindi which the common man often finds it difficult to understand. In our courts of law it is often difficult to understand the Hindi used in government notifications. Also this policy of hatred for Persian words resulted in almost genocide for Urdu. However, despite all hostile efforts the language which speaks the voice of the heart can never be stamped out as long as people have hearts. The evidence that Urdu lives in the hearts of Indians even today can be seen from the surprisingly large crowds which “mushairas” attract, from all sections of society and in all parts of the country, North, West, South and East. If Urdu is a foreign language it is very surprising that the people of India love it so much. I may mention that there is a misconception about Sanskrit that it is a language of the Hindu religion (just as there is a misconception that Urdu is the language of Muslims). In fact Sanskrit is the language of free thinkers. The range of philosophical schools in Sanskrit is astonishing, from deeply religious to totally atheistic. The great Hindi writer Rahul Sanskratayan used to say that before he learnt Sanskrit he believed in God, but after he learnt it he became an atheist. The great scientists of ancient India like
Aryabhatta, Sushrut and Charak all wrote in Sanskrit, and so did philosophers, grammarians, playwrights, poets, etc. My earnest appeal to those who wish to revive Urdu is that they should link it with Sanskrit and not go alone, and that way Urdu cannot be branded as a communal language. Also, I suggest that the Devnagri script be also used in publication of works of Urdu poets, (as was done by Prakash
Pandit) since that will enable those who do not know the Persian script to read it. In my opinion one should not be too rigid about the script. What can be done is that in the left hand page the text can be published in the Persian script, while on the right hand page it can be published in the Devnagri script, with meanings of difficult words explained below in simple Hindi (Hindustani). In the end I would like to appeal to Urdu (and Hindi) writers to use simple language. Often on reading some Hindi or Urdu work one finds it difficult to understand it. But if what is written is not even understandable what use is there of such literature? Today the Indian people are facing terrible problems like poverty, unemployment, price rise etc. Literature must contribute to the people’s struggles in the face of these problems, and that it can do by using simple language which the people can understand, like the war time speeches of Winston Churchill, or the stories of Premchand and Sarat
Chandra.
|
Not in our interest July 22, 2008, is a historic day because the government won the vote of trust while people lost trust in the political class and it is unclear what national interest is all about. The public was and is confused about the issues involved in India going to the IAEA to seal the Indo-US nuclear deal. The issues have been further lost sight of due to horse-trading witnessed in the corridors of power. MPs and small parties swung from one pole to the other from day to day. It was publicly stated that upwards of Rs. 20 crore was offered for a vote. Dramatic revelations were made on the floor of the House. This is tragic since national interest has become secondary to the survival of the government. On a crucial foreign policy issue, major parties stand deeply divided. Attempts at building a national consensus have been given up and the government of the day is willing to proceed after what appears to be a contrived vote. Is one talking of just any national interest? Importing more of automobiles in a given year is also an issue of national interest but not a long run one. Allowing MNCs to operate in the country is a strategic decision but still not as crucial as the one that may weaken the nation politically and militarily, as could happen with the nuclear deal with the USA. As such, a much wider consensus is needed than is presently available to the UPA government. Ostensibly, the decision is being taken on the ground of increased availability of nuclear energy. While this is important, is it strategic enough to give up national consensus on foreign policy, its independence and strategic military interests? Nuclear energy will increase the availability of energy. The government says 20 years from now, the agreement will enable us to produce 7 per cent of our energy through the nuclear route. However, this will be very expensive and the poor who can hardly afford the present lower cost power will not be able to afford it. France producing 70 per cent of its power through this route is irrelevant to us at 3 per cent of its per capita income. Further, it takes 10 years to set up a nuclear power plant so the share of nuclear power (3 per cent) will decline in the coming years. More research and reordering of priorities can save and/or produce this much of energy in the immediate future. Shift to public transport and use of bio mass are some of the obvious examples. Thus, expensive nuclear energy is hardly a strategic interest of the nation. Consequently, foreign policy has to be the over riding aspect of the Indo US agreement. This needs a wider discussion for greater clarity on what is the national interest. Russia has supplied nuclear power plants in the past and seems to be willing to give more. This arrangement can continue for whatever nuclear energy we are producing. But then our relationship with the Russians is what the US does not want. Further, since we are supposedly short of fuel, for the older plants our to import it for the newer ones. The supply is liable to be cut off in case of political disagreements and no matter what is agreed to, we would be able to do little, as happened in case of Tarapore. Would the nation not be open to political blackmail? The crucial feature of this deal is clearly the strategic tie-up with the USA. There are two aspects to this – a political and a technological one. The political aspect is of greater strategic importance. Given our current economic and military position, we can at best be a junior partner of the USA (just as Britain under Blair was). It would want us to counter the rising power of China, help it in Central Asian Republics, Iraq and Afghanistan and in containing Iran. It would like us to downplay the Russia-China-India grouping. We are in danger of becoming its regional representative against Islam to our West and thwarting China and Russia to our North – like Israel protecting US interests in West Asia. Is it in our interest that instead of solving our problems with our neighbours we become a part of a global US design? It is peace in this area that we need to overcome poverty. China is a recognised nuclear power state with a different status than ours. The new deal will freeze our position in this regard and weaken us viz.-a-viz China forever. If the argument is that we need nuclear weapons to counter China, this deal is not the way to go since it is meant to cap our capabilities and increase our dependence on the US. If we are permanently weakened with regard to China that is reason enough to have peaceful relations with that country. Peace in West Asia is essential for our energy security and is a matter of concern for our sizeable Muslim population. Thus, it is less than clear why India should be a part of the US design for Asia? Regarding technology, it is argued that what has been denied to India till now will become available. But when has one nation given another nation advanced technology? In the last 60 years, India has had only low or intermediate technology available to it and that too at a price. Further, the know-how is not shared so that the absorption of technology and its development has been weak and we have remained dependent on import of each new generation of technology. China developed nuclear technology in the fifties by exercising its national will. The US has not given us technology in the past and is unlikely to give us advanced technology now. Buying the seventies technology F-16 aircraft will not get us technology – forget the latest, two generations ahead technology in aero space which the US has. Finally, 50 years after the first nuclear reactor, we are banking on importing them after signing the agreement. But we are unlikely to get the technology. There is no short-cut to the political will to gain self-sufficiency in nuclear technology. In brief, the problem with the deal is that neither nuclear energy nor technology is its crucial aspect. The key is the strategic alliance which would cap our nuclear military programme while simultaneously leading to a worsening of our relations with our neighbours for the sake of US interests.
|
|
Profile It
was, perhaps, the shortest speech in the debate on the confidence motion in the Lok Sabha but straightforward, punchy, exposing the bitter truth in minimum possible words. An anguished Omar described the episode as “unfortunate”, wondering if Rs. 1 crore shown in the House was seeking to “buy the silence of parties like mine”. He then went into the real issue which sought to divide the people on the basis of religion. Raising his voice amidst interruptions, Omar said: “ I am a Muslim, and I am an Indian, I see no distinction between the two……. I see no reason why, I as a Muslim, have to fear a deal (nuclear) between India and the United States……….. This deal is between two countries”. He then elaborated the point, saying the enemies of Indian Muslims are not Americans, and the enemies of the Indian Muslims are not “deals” like this. The enemies of the Indian Muslims are the same enemies that all the poor people of India face, namely, poverty and hunger, employment, lack of development and the absence of a vice. Omar then had a sharp dig at the Marxists, exposing their double standards, clarifying, at the same time, that “ I am not a member of the UPA; nor do I aspire to be a member of the ruling dispensation. But, I am extremely unhappy with the way in which my friends in the Left have taken on this self-imposed position of being certifiers of who is secular and who is not …”. Then came the punch-line: “Until a few years ago, I was a part of the NDA and I was a minister with them. The same Left parties considered me as a political untouchable, and they considered me an outcast because I was a part of the NDA. Today, the same Left people are telling me that all secular parties must unite with the BJP to bring down the government………. (interruptions). I made a mistake of standing with them once. I did not resign on the question of Gujarat when my conscience told me to do so, and my conscience has still not forgiven me. I need not make that mistake again…” A scion of one of the most distinguished families of Kashmir, 38-year-old Omar is the son of Farooq Abdullah and grandson of Sheikh Abdullah. He represents modern India, is energetic and articulate and has made an impact on Indian politics. As the Assembly elections in Kashmir knock at the doors, all eyes are focussed on him. Heading the National Conference, he is to be watched. Will he be the next Chief Minister of the strife-torn state? Omar began his political career in 1998, having been elected to the Lok Sabha. In 1999, he was elected to the 13th Lok Sabha and inducted into the Union Council of Ministers as MOS in the External Affairs Ministry, becoming the youngest minister at the Centre. He was re-elected to the Lok Sabha for the third time in a row from Srinagar and continues to represent the constituency. The year 2006 was an important year in his political career when he was elected President of the National Conference for the second time. Many eyebrows were raised when he met Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf the same year in Islamabad. Omar’s growing importance has put him on the terrorists’ hit list; an attempt was made on his life in 2007 but he escaped when suspected terrorists fired two grenades, targeting him. The militants made a second attempt on his life last year when he was on his way to a girls’ school in Srinagar. They were unable to target him, but attacked the school and school children. An angry Omar was enraged and his impromptu comment was: “I can’t believe that any religion or any cause, no matter howsoever sacred, justifies attack on innocent schoolgirls”. Omar would like to see the Kashmiri Pandits , who were forced to leave the valley, return to their homes. He has since been repeatedly saying: “We are constantly striving to create conditions that are conductive for the return of Kahmiri Pandit brothers and sisters. We want them to return with dignity and honour and of their own free will, free from coercion…”. Will he be able to bring the Pandits back in the event of his party returning to power in the October Assembly elections?
|
|
On Record
The
recent blasts in various cities have exposed chinks in the security apparatus. Terrorists have showed their capacity to strike at will. Ajai Sahni, Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management, says it cannot be managed with little tinkering here and there. The need is to bring about wholesome changes in police working, augment the intelligence network and build huge capacities. It cannot be managed without doing something dramatic. The solutions are right here there is no need for what is called an “out-of-the-box” thought process, says Sahni in an interview. He has authored books on security and keeps an avid watch on the intelligence community in South Asia. Excerpts: Do you agree with the Home Ministry plan to have a federal investigating agency to coordinate cases of terrorism? Not the way this is being intended to work in this form it is a wrong concept and a non-starter. It will be yet another monolith where we end up creating a “shell structure” like the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO). We have a huge shortage of officers and the new agency will only end up scavenging upon the existing strength of other agencies. Already everybody and everything is over stretched. How can a new agency investigate cases unless it has a role in prevention? It needs a national data base like the FBI in the USA has. It will only end up duplicating the work of the Intelligence Bureau in gathering information. What is your suggestion? The need is to hugely augment the Intelligence Bureau and not create yet another entity. Have multiple units of the IB at the state-level draw people from the state police forces, train them, equip them and provide latest techniques in gathering intelligence. Human intelligence cannot be downgraded. It is more important than technical inputs. Build huge capacities by adding more people. The number of policemen is 126 per every lakh of population in India whereas in the developed world has between 250 and 500 policemen per lakh and their forces are backed with latest technology and work satisfaction. Change the profile of the entire police force of the country and re-train it to be alert to threats from terrorism. There are suggestions that more retired jawans of the armed forces and the paramilitary should be taken in the police? The jawans are retiring at an average age of 40 and they are a good asset that is not being utilised optimally. For example, a jawan from the Signals Crops should be picked up automatically by the state police; he is an immensely trained man in intercepting communication networks. However, the police forces also need youth. So mix and match the needs. Bring in retired jawans as they are already trained but also infuse some fresh blood. Where is India lacking? The entire security apparatus is not doing what it is supposed to do. The average beat constable does not have the inclination towards or understanding of such issues. He is overworked and over-burdened with additional duties imposed upon him like making bandobast and VIP security. Basic policing has been forgotten. India continues to operate third-rate security systems. Immediately we need to assess the needs of a fast modernising nation that has a 1.2 billion population. The intelligence community is woefully under-staffed and the political masters are using the capabilities for their own use. Huge vacancies in the police forces exist and that too at the strength that was sanctioned in the 1980s. In the present scenario what should be India's response when indications have emerged that Pakistan-based terrorists could be involved in blasts in India? Redevelop covert capabilities in Balochistan, NWFP and Afghanistan. These have been destroyed by the successive governments in the past 30 years. Do not get into a tit-for-tat game to match a blast in India with a blast in Pakistan. I do not subscribe to the view of fermenting trouble in Pakistan, rather have the capacity to neutralise masterminds of terror wherever they are in Pakistan. Look at Dawood Ibrahim. He has been living in Pakistan for the past 15 years and we have not been able to place a finger on him. Getting into a negative game will not help us. I have no reason to believe that the Indian Mujahideen exists. It is just a name by the SIMI and the HUJI. Also there is a possibility that Dawood could be funding all
this.
|
||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
It came from Omar Abdullah, who had earlier witnessed the unsavoury drama; BJP members, ripping open brief cases and strewing wads of currency notes on the table. 